The Wages of Willful Blindness: Is It Time for Defenders of Liberty to Abandon the GOP? by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 24, 2012

The embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood by President Obama, aided and abetted by the Republican establishment, is not new. It is the culmination of a gradual surrender whose silhouette was already evident nearly twenty years ago. I wrote about it in Willful Blindness, a memoir about the start of our nation's confrontation with Islamic supremacism as a domestic threat - back in the early Nineties, when I led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh's New York jihadist cell, which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Is our wayward course one that can be corrected? The ongoing controversy over Islamist influence on our government will probably answer that question. Spotlighted are concerns raised by five conservative members of the House of Representatives about (i) Brotherhood-friendly government policymaking and (ii) government officials, such as the State Department's Huma Abedin, who have longstanding Islamist ties. The crossroads at which we've arrived, however, involve a lot more than any single government official or policy. Let me be stark: Our liberty and security are threatened, and the questions not only of whether GOP leaders comprehend the stakes, but also of whether the Republican Party remains a worthy home for defenders of liberty, have become very real.

A little history, to measure how far we've veered. When we tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his cohorts in 1995, the overarching charge was that all 12 defendants, plus dozens of unindicted coconspirators, conspired to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States. Beyond the Trade Center attack, this campaign included a more ambitious plot to bomb New York City landmarks (e.g., Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, UN complex, FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters, some U.S. military installations, etc.), as well as sundry schemes to kidnap or assassinate current and former government officials, murder the president of Egypt, and the like.

Here is the crucial part that you need to understand: The Blind Sheikh and his subordinates were not merely "violent extremists," seized by some sort of psychological problem. They were Islamic supremacists. Yes, their methods were barbaric; but that does not mean they were insane or irrational. Indeed, had that been the case, they would have been not guilty by reason of mental incapacity.

To the contrary, we proved that their actions were rationally motivated by Islamic supremacist ideology, an easily knowable interpretation of Islam, drawn directly from Muslim scripture, that commands its adherents to coerce societies into adopting sharia. Sharia is Islam's totalitarian framework for how societies are to be ruled. It is not just a set of spiritual guidelines; it is a comprehensive social and legal system, said to be Allah's gift and directive to mankind. It governs all human activity - not just prayer and worship, but financial, social, familial, political, military, and even hygienic activity.

Here are two salient facts. Once you grasp them, you'll know everything you need to know to understand the rest of the dispute: (a) Not all Islamic supremacists (or "Islamists") are violent, but the goal of all Islamic supremacists is the same: to coerce the acceptance of sharia. The methods of pursuing that goal vary: sometimes terrorism is used, sometimes non-violent avenues are exploited - meaning, Islamic supremacists co-opt legal processes, the media, educational institutions, and/or government agencies. But regardless of what methods an Islamic supremacist uses, his goal never changes: He aims to implement sharia. In Islamic supremacist ideology, sharia is regarded as the mandatory, non-negotiable foundation that must be laid before a society can be Islamized. Sharia is not "moderate"; therefore, you are not a "moderate" if you want it, no matter what method you use to implement it. For example, if you are an Islamic supremacist and you want to repeal the First Amendment in order to prohibit speech that casts Islam in a negative light, you are not a "moderate" - even if you wouldn't blow up buildings to press your point. (b) Islamic supremacism is not a fringe interpretation of Islam. It is probably still the minority interpretation in North America. Nevertheless, it is the predominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in countries like Egypt and Pakistan want their governments to adopt and strictly enforce sharia. This is why the Islamic supremacist parties in the "Arab Spring" countries are currently enjoying such success in elections With that as background, understand that in the aforementioned 1995 trial, we proved that the reason the Blind Sheikh was able to run a terrorist organization - despite the fact that his physical infirmities rendered him incapable of performing any physical acts that would be useful to terrorists - was his globally renowned mastery of Islamic law. Omar Abdel Rahman is not a nut suffering from a psychological disorder. He has a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence, earned by graduating with distinction from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the legendary seat of sharia scholarship since the Tenth Century. When he preached that Muslims were obligated to force non-sharia governments to adopt sharia, by terrorism if necessary, he drew these instructions directly from Islamic scripture, and his instructions had extraordinary persuasive force precisely because he was, undeniably, an internationally recognized authority on Islamic jurisprudence. The government would have you to believe Barack Obama or George Bush or Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Condi Rice or Janet Reno knows more about Islam and its sharia than Omar Abdel Rahman does. That is ludicrous.

We seemed to get that 20 years ago, but observe the measure of how far off-course we've drifted:

(a) In 1995, we demonstrated that (i) the Blind Sheikh was attempting to impose sharia, (ii) that he drew directly and accurately from Islamic scripture his instructions that Muslims must impose sharia, by violence if necessary, and (iii) his Muslim followers were animated by these instructions to push for the imposition of sharia standards, using terrorist attacks, among other methods. That was the crux our our case. For proving this in federal court, the Clinton Justice Department honored my colleagues and me with the attorney general's highest award. (b) Today, by contrast, for doing exactly the same thing - namely, for arguing that an authoritative interpretation of Islam directs adherents to impose sharia, by violence if necessary, in order to lay the groundwork for changing a non-Islamic society into an Islamic society - I am routinely accused of promoting hatred and "Islamophobia." Such accusations, applied to assertions of what used to be seen as fact, do not come only from the Obama Left (including its Clinton administration veterans - the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, and the Justice Department run by Eric Holder, Clinton's deputy attorney general). The smears are echoed, and in many cases led, by prominent members of the Republican establishment.

I haven't changed. The threat against us hasn't changed. The government has changed.

The Obama administration and the Republican establishment would have us live a lie - a lie that endangers our liberties and our security. The lie is this: There is a difference between mainstream Islamic ideology and what they call "violent extremism."

The vogue term "violent extremism" is chosen very deliberately. To be sure, we've always bent over backwards to be politically correct. Until Obama came to power, we used to use terms like "violent jihadism" or "Islamic extremism" in order to make sure everyone knew that we were not condemning all of Islam, that we were distinguishing Muslim terrorists from other Muslims. (In a more sensible time, we did not say "German Nazis" - we said "Germans" or "Nazis" and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.) But now, the Obama administration and the Republican establishment prefer to say "violent extremism" because this term has no hint of Islam.

According to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment (personified today by the likes of Sen. John McCain and many, but by no means all, former high-ranking officials from the Bush 43 administration), the only Muslims we need to be concerned about are terrorists, and there is nothing relevant in the fact that they happen to be Muslims. "Violent extremists" are not motivated by a coherent ideology, much less by scriptures from "one of the world's great religions." Instead, they are seized by a psychological disorder that inexplicably makes them prone to mass-murder attacks.

The fall-out from this line of thinking is that we must conclude mainstream Islam, everywhere on earth including the Middle East, has nothing to do with violence, and therefore, it is "moderate," and even "admirable." Sure, it may be advocating the adoption of something called "sharia," but we needn't worry about that. After all, we have Western scholars of Islamic studies (mostly working in university departments created by lavish donations from Saudi royals) who will tell you that sharia is amorphous and evolving - such that nobody really knows exactly what it is, anyway. Consequently, nothing to see here, move along. You are to accept as an article of faith that there is no reason to believe people steeped in mainstream Islam will resist real democracy or that they will remain hostile to the United States. And, yeah, sure they are opposed to Israel, but that is just a "political dispute" about "territory"; it has nothing to do with ideology or mainstream Islam per se.

This is why there is such an energetic effort on behalf of the Obama administration and leading Republican establishment figures to portray the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization that you should think of as a "pragmatic," "moderate" "political party" (or a series of "political parties," "think tanks" and "political action committees"). You are not to see it the way it sees itself, and the way it actually is: an ideological movement rooted in the mainstream, supremacist interpretation of Islam that is undeniably regnant in the Middle East.

This is why the Obama administration and the Republican establishment work so hard to ignore the Brotherhood's anthem: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" This is why they labor to obscure the connection between the Brotherhood and Hamas, the Brotherhood's Palestinian branch. This is why they are now trying to revise our understanding of Hamas: To borrow not only from Obama officials but from the meanderings of such top Bush administration figures as Condi Rice, you are subtly encouraged to start viewing Hamas as not a terrorist organization but a political "resistance" movement, engaged in some regrettable violence that is vaguely justifiable because Israel is an illegal, oppressive occupier. Under this delusional view of our threat environment, the Muslim Brotherhood is not an ideological enemy to be feared but a political organization to be negotiated with and accommodated. You know, just like any other political entity. Thus, our security is not furthered by heightened surveillance of Islamic organizations (very much including Brotherhood organizations) that preach supremacist ideology. Islam, you are to understand, is not a problem. Rinse and repeat: The only problem is violent extremism, which has nothing to do with Islam. Furthermore, in the world according to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment, since our security is not threatened by Islamist organizations, we must "partner" with them. After all, they simply must be innately non-violent; thus, the reasoning goes, if we accommodate them politically (i.e., accede to their calls for incremental acceptance of sharia), they will work with us in good faith and strive to keep young Muslims away from violent extremists. Funny, but it seems that even though Islam has nothing to do with "violent extremism," young Muslims and violent extremists somehow keep finding each other.

When Senator McCain and his lemmings rebuke House conservatives for purportedly attacking Huma Abedin's "patriotism," there are two things at work. First, when the facts are against you - as they usually are against Sen. McCain - demagoguery and character assassination are the most effective response: The compliant, Islamophilic media will help intimidate your opponents into silence. We all are very familiar with this tactic. But we often miss the second tactic, which is more important because it goes directly to our conception of "patriotism."

That second tactic is this: the Obama Left and the Republican establishment would have you accept the following premise: anti-American Islamic supremacists are not an ideological threat but a mere political movement; therefore, American government officials who want to treat them as a mere political movement - to negotiate with them and accommodate them - are not endangering America; they are strengthening America. Consequently, if you dare suggest that this is a lunatic way of looking at things, you are a McCarthyite demagogue, not a patriot. According to the Obama Left, the Republican establishment and their complicit media, it is for them, not you, to define what "patriotism" means. Thus Huma Abedin becomes the "patriot" exactly because of her connections to Islamists; Michele Bachmann becomes the "demagogue" exactly because she dares suggest that Islamists are an ideological threat. This is the crossroads at which we now find ourselves. On one side are national security conservatives, myself included, who reluctantly accept the stubborn fact that Islamic supremacist ideology is incorrigibly hostile to America and the West. We take the Muslim Brotherhood at its word that it is seeking to destroy the West and destroy Israel, and that it is doing so based on a divine injunction that is easily traceable to Islamic scripture. We understand that there are other ways of interpreting Islam, and we wish those other ways were predominant. But we believe American national security requires grasping that Islamic supremacism is the predominant Islam of the Middle East; it is the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the world, very much including its organizations operating in our own country. We understand that Islamic supremacist ideology inspires not only violent jihad but also non-violent campaigns to supplant Western culture with Islamic culture - such as, for example, the campaign waged by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Brotherhood to restrict free speech; their campaign to have sharia-compliant finance broadly accepted in the West; and their campaign to delegitimize Israel as a "racist occupier" while recasting Hamas, the Brotherhood, and even Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) as "political parties" and "resistance" movements.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and blogs at National Review Online's The Corner.

No. If the GOP loses the Presidential race it is as dead as the Whigs. There will not be any coming back. Obama will rule by Executive Order and IRS goons with the support of his welfare and union clients.

From the article:
“On one side are national security conservatives, myself included, who reluctantly accept the stubborn fact that Islamic supremacist ideology is incorrigibly hostile to America and the West. We take the Muslim Brotherhood at its word that it is seeking to destroy the West and destroy Israel, and that it is doing so based on a divine injunction that is easily traceable to Islamic scripture. We understand that there are other ways of interpreting Islam, and we wish those other ways were predominant. But we believe American national security requires grasping that Islamic supremacism is the predominant Islam of the Middle East; it is the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the world, very much including its organizations operating in our own country. We understand that Islamic supremacist ideology inspires not only violent jihad but also non-violent campaigns to supplant Western culture with Islamic culture - such as, for example, the campaign waged by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Brotherhood to restrict free speech; their campaign to have sharia-compliant finance broadly accepted in the West; and their campaign to delegitimize Israel as a “racist occupier” while recasting Hamas, the Brotherhood, and even Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) as “political parties” and “resistance”).

Much chatter tthat comes down to:

Islam is antithetical to america and is irreconcilable with America.

Therefore:
“Islam Delenda Est” - because of what Islam is, and because of what Muslims do.

Conclusion: Islam is a societal cancer.
Radiation is the answer!

9
posted on 07/24/2012 5:09:49 PM PDT
by GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)

The tea party patriots are essentially the GOP rank and file. We need to take back our party.

We have to dump Boehner, for this and for several other reasons as well. He needs to be “primaried” at the next opportunity.

I will say this, when Romney comes back in January and says “we don’t want to repeal all of Obamacare, there’s some good stuff in there...” then I am out. We can launch our FR party and I’ll be first to sign up.

The Republican Party had a heroic youth, , a prosperous adulthood; a content middle age, and the disgustingly sclerotic, disgusting old age through which it is presently drooling its incontinent Dole-McCain senile way.

Yes, it has to die. Every man jack on this site would love to pull the trigger. But, BUT, BUT WTF is to replace it? Start a Third Party? Some kind of "Conservative" Party? Who the hell would vote for it? All 10 of us? No Way José! Would be like giving Bill Clinton and Congressman Condit your credit card and dropping them off at a whorehouse.

Right now, the Republican Party/Democrat PArty isn't about governing the Republic. It's about Insider Trading, with every one of the too-numerous "bills" larded with amendments which are, each and every one, a pay off. 3 terms in Congress and the most inept lawyer in the olde home town is suddenly a millionaire ... and so is every member of his extended family.

Together, the Feinsteins and the Boxers are BILLIONAIRES! Pelosi? Even more! Reid? from 0 to $25 million we know about. Boehner, Hatch, McConnell ... ditto. Even old hatchet face Olympia is worth $35 Mill. Goes a long way in Maine.

BIG Government is a kleptocracy, and if you think they want to cut in another party, you got another thing coming. The Republicans are the worst. They have traded any pretense of ideology for safe, lucrative seats ... and being in the minority means you never have to say you're sorry.

They ceded control of the government itself to the Democrats in the 1930's and have never looked back. How? How? How to bury the stinking corpse without signing away the entire shebang to the Democrats? That's the conumdrum.

Take over the Republican Party, you say? Well, RINO Romney just did that!

15
posted on 07/24/2012 5:21:55 PM PDT
by Kenny Bunk
(What Hawaii gave to Obama, was not what Obama gave to us.)

This is hell of a time to abandon the GOP, right before the election. Most of us are pissed our candidate didn’t make it through the primaries as the winner, but is that any reason to throw it over to Obama for another four years? At least with Romney, there is a remote chance of taking back the party. If Obama wins it’s all over.

Its called doing our civic duty....becoming as politically involved from the Constitutional perspective as the Progressive/Socialist/Communists have been for the last 80 years creating this nasty little mess...

Most conservatives have always fancied they have better things to do.

I would put forth, that until the needed Constitutional things get done to restore the freedoms free markets and free men require, they’ll have plenty of time to devote to politics because there no longer is any way real business can be done under the present circumstances.

20
posted on 07/24/2012 4:06:59 PM PDT
by mo
(If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)

Conservatives can’t even organize enough to oppose a sidewalk ordinance at a local village council meeting.

Look how well they got together to vote for a conservative in the primaries.

Conservatives don’t understand organization or leadership.

The Founders organized Committees of Safety to fight the British Crown. That concept completely flies over the heads of conservatives.

I bang my head against the wall when I suggest to conservatives that they get involved in local politics. Elect a constitutional sheriff, volunteer for the county land planning committees. It’s all a big DUH!! to conservatives.

The Founders left a blueprint to fight tyranny. Either clean out your local neighborhoods or get squashed.

23
posted on 07/24/2012 4:15:21 PM PDT
by sergeantdave
(Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)

Left, right, center rank and file Americans are comfortable with extensive and expansive government at local levels. The development I live in has been in a major fight for three years over weather to dedicate the streets to the parish (county). There will be no real benefits as the development has to bring the streets up to code for the parish to take them but the parish will then put them at the end of the maintenance schedule and it will be 15 + years before a major redo will occur. I keep saying that keeping the parish government out of neighborhood and the sheriff's department NOT doing routine patrols is desirable. Only a few agree others can't fathom my approach. The big fight is over trying to avoid having to spend money. Everyone wants some mechanism whereby the streets will be kept up to code and NOBODY PAYS A DIME. That is the beginning and end of the incredible venom in this dispute. Anger at having to pay for taking care of ones own neighborhood. The entitlement mentality has penetrated so deeply it makes me despair for the nation and the opportunity to see just how petty narrow and selfish the overwhelmingly ‘conservative’ population of this development is tells me that the cause of real constitutional government is probably lost before any fight starts. I have no answer other than young people should move to perhaps Idaho or Montana where there seems to be some chance to actually control government.

“This is hell of a time to abandon the GOP, right before the election. Most of us are pissed our candidate didnt make it through the primaries as the winner, but is that any reason to throw it over to Obama for another four years? At least with Romney, there is a remote chance of taking back the party. If Obama wins its all over.”

***

I didn’t abandon the party; it abandoned me and every other conservative.

And a Romney win will only guarantee that the party will continue to push liberal candidates on us.

Yes unfortunately many ‘conservatives’ really just want to belly ache about Washington and demand as that local government do more and more for them. The vitriolic attacks i have had directed at me by some of the local'conservative ‘ women when I say that one should home school their children to the degree possible and that even doing it for a few years will give children a radically different world view plus a real ability to read and to understand why knowing ‘facts’ is important and that they will never be just dumbed down drones are very telling. ‘We pay taxes, we deserve to use the schools.’ is the be all and end all argument.

Notice there is a 6 year overlap in which the 2 parties existed together.

So when people ask? "We can't just leave the GOP, where do we go!?" We build our own Conservative-Libertarian-Tea Party. We can't do this overnight and we are going to have to stop voting GOP to make that happen. But won't that mean Democrat victories!?!? I don't know about you, but the Democrats sure have been winning alot, even with the "Loyal Opposition" being the Grand Old Progressives.

Also notice the Democrats don't have a Headstone, so from 1828 on we have the party of Slavery and "Do whatever it takes to win" still alive and kicking. Granted they experienced a coma during Reconstruction and some like Grover Cleavland I would kill to have in the oval office today, but overall the party of dependance has no death date as off yet and yert the Conservatives are told to change or GTFO.

31
posted on 07/24/2012 5:48:41 PM PDT
by KC_Lion
(The Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. Soon, We the People shall issue ours.)

I totally agree with Mark Levin on this subject. You might want to listen to him, if you don’t already, and learn something. I did. The GOP sucks, no doubt. It has never been the party of conservatives. But, right now what is the alternative... besides letting this phoney Obama have 4 more years to gut our nation? Not voting is the same as giving a vote to Obama — I won’t do that.

Seriously, I don’t need pointless graphics to explain anything. Mark Levin is smarter than you... so I’m going with him. I won’t vote for Obama under any circumstances. You are free to vote for him if you wish.

You answered my post with a graphic that read:"Any vote not for mittens = a vote for Obama" You failed math, didn't you?

I read that as sentiment against voting for Romney  you answered your own question.

If you think stealing graphics from other web sources and posting them makes you smart... I got news for you: You are just a common thief using other people's talent and brains  not exactly thinking for yourself, is it?

Liar. What you actually STATED, in Post #37, was: "I wont vote for Obama under any circumstances. You are free to vote for him if you wish." You've now had no fewer than three opportunities to back up said baseless assertion; the fact that you demonstrably can not do so pretty much says it all, really.

The GOP is not the root of the problem. Conservatism inc is. It sold out to the establishment. And worse, Islamists and their allies control it. Grover al-Norquist is on the board of most organizations of establishment conservatism. And at least half of the non-establishment conservative groups are isolationist and apologize for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a civil war within the GOP and Conservatism inq. Fleeing is not an option. There is nothing else out there. We must build alternatives to Norquist-dominated and Paulite groups and take back the movement, the party, and the country.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.